Postings of blogs from a variety of sources that provides a perspective to current issues confronting America and it's citizens : Islamists, illegal immigration, freedom of speech
This blog is not a definitive answer to any of the questions confronted by sentient men and women in the 21st century. It is however a depository of individual opinions and their perception of a variety of events. The main focus - although it is ever changing - are viewed as transgressions against common sense.

Religion

03/18/2015

Jack Wheeler is a brilliant man who was the author of Reagan's strategy to break the back of the Soviet Union with the star wars race and expose their inner weakness. For years he wrote a weekly intelligence update that was extremely interesting and well structured and informative. He consults(ed) with several mega corporations on global trends and the future, etc. He is in semi-retirement now. He is a true patriot with a no-nonsense approach to everything. He is also a somewhat well-known mountain climber and adventurer.

Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler:

The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract, empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.

He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya . Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.

What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is 'African-American,' the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it.

Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves, he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah.

It's something Hillary doesn't understand - how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult, whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white.

Thus Obama has become the white liberals' Christ, offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be effective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed In Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him: Credo quia absurdum, I believe it because it is absurd.

Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior.

He is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any thinking American.

And yet he got elected, not once but twice, thanks to those who did not think it was important to vote for freedom and those that were willing to give up their freedoms for entitlements.

Remember you don't have to be on a southern plantation to be a slave, if you are dependent on government entitlements you just have a different slave owner.

05/04/2013

This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:

*Theologically - no.. Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon god of Arabia .*

*Religiously - no... Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam. (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)*

*Scripturally - no... Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.*

*Geographically - no.. Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.*

*Socially - no... Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.*

*Politically - no.... Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.*

*Domestically - no... Because Muslim men are instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wives when she disobeys him. (Quran 4:34 )*

*Intellectually - no.. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.*

*Philosophically - no... Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran does not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.*

*Spiritually - no... Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' The Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran's 99 excellent names.*

*Therefore, after much study and deliberation... Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country.*

*Call it what you wish, it's still the truth.. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for the safety of our country and our future.*

*This** religious war is bigger** **than we know or understand!*

*Footnote: The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within. But most Americans refuse to accept the idea that a so-called "religion" can be so evil. We all need to wake up!*

*This maybe why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities, and until they do - from my perspective - there are no moderate Muslims*

03/07/2011

THE eldest of four Pakistani gang rapist brothers has admitted lying at trial and apologised to his victims but said he thought he had a right to rape the "promiscuous" teenage girls.

MSK, 27, told the NSW Supreme Court yesterday that this was because the girls did not wear headscarves, were drinking alcohol and were unaccompanied when they went to his Ashfield home. MSK also blamed his intoxication, "cultural beliefs" and an undiagnosed mental disorder.

He and his brothers MAK, 25, MRK, 21, and MMK, 19 - who cannot be named for legal reasons - are serving between 10 and 22 years for raping two girls in 2002. All except MRK are yet to be sentenced for several other rapes.

Yesterday evidence was being heard on a sentence for MSK for the rapes of two more girls, TW, then 14, and CH, then 13. He admitted that some of the evidence he had given at an earlier trial was fabricated, particularly that he had had consensual sex with TW and that she had coaxed him.

"It was a pretty big untruth when you said that it was consensual sex, wasn't it?" asked the Crown prosecutor, Ken McKay.

"Yes," he replied.

You chose to lie about that, correct? - Yes.

During a long apology to TW, who was in court, he stopped mid-sentence to reprimand her.

"I wish to say this to [TW], that at the time when I commit these offences I come from such a background which led me to - don't shake your head, I'm telling you something - I say now that I hurt you and I'm extremely, extremely apologetic to you and I'm, I wish to say one thing more.

"I'm serving 22 years … I'm just requesting to you that you one day may come that you realise that the person who assaulted me is in prison … and I should forgive him. I'm asking for your forgiveness." He said it was only now, since he had gained a "better understanding of Australian culture", that he knew the rapes were wrong.

He arrived in Sydney for the ninth and final time four days before committing several rapes over six months. He had planned to study medicine.

He agreed he knew the girls did not want to have sex. "[TW] said no but I go ahead with it because I believe that at the time I commit these offences, I believe that she was promiscuous …" he said. "She don't know us, I don't know her, like she was not related to us and she was not wearing any purdah … like she was not … covered her face, she was not wearing any headscarf and she started drinking with us and she was singing.

"First off, I was actually, I was not taking my medication so I was under the influence of voices and secondly I believe at the time when I commit these offences that she had no right to say no."

Mr McKay said the voices excuse was a last-ditch strategy to avoid justice. "You wanted to hurt and terrorise these girls and you did that. You used acts of sexual intercourse on them."

11/02/2010

With all the talk of Sharia in the news lately -- the measure to outlaw it in Oklahoma, the ongoing attempts by Islamic apologists to whitewash it -- it is useful to recall some of its more notable aspects. One of these is qisas, or retaliation, which allows for blood money to be paid by the perpetrator to the relatives of the deceased in cases of accidental death or even murder.

In such cases, the compensation is higher if the victim was a Muslim than if he was a non-Muslim. Only the Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence allows for the possibility of capital punishment in the case of a Muslim who has murdered an unbeliever. The Maliki and Hanbali schools set a Muslim's life as worth twice that of a non-Muslim -- hence this Saudi Hanbali ruling below. The Shafi'i school sets a Muslim's life as worth two-thirds that of a Jew or Christian. Polytheists, as here, are valued less. The Shafi'i Sharia manual 'Umdat al-Salik dictates: "The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man. The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid for a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth that of a Muslim." (o4.9)

From the website of the Consulate General of India, Jeddah, who is recording these matters because they come up in connection with his people who are working in Saudi Arabia (thanks to bestproject):

4. Mode of Pavment [sic] :

All Death Compensation cases (except industrial accidents) in Saudi Arabia are settled through concerned Shariat Courts in accordance with the Shariat Law.

5. Maximum Amount admissible :

The maximum amount of Death Compensation (Diyya) generally admissible in Saudi Arabia, in respect of road/traffic/fire accident, murder, etc. is as under:

In the case of death of a female, death compensation allowed is equal to half the amount as admissible to males professing the same religion. Further the amount of compensation admissible, is based on the percentage of responsibility fixed on the causer e.g. if the causer is held 50% responsible for the accident resulting in the death of a Muslim, the amount of Death Compensation admissible will be SR 50,000 only.

The Iranian Shi'ite Sufi Sheikh Sultanhussein Tabandeh explains: "Thus if [a] Muslim commits adultery his punishment is 100 lashes, the shaving of his head, and one year of banishment. But if the man is not a Muslim and commits adultery with a Muslim woman his penalty is execution...Similarly if a Muslim deliberately murders another Muslim he falls under the law of retaliation and must by law be put to death by the next of kin. But if a non-Muslim who dies at the hand of a Muslim has by lifelong habit been a non-Muslim, the penalty of death is not valid. Instead the Muslim murderer must pay a fine and be punished with the lash....Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim...then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain...Again, the penalties of a non-Muslim guilty of fornication with a Muslim woman are augmented because, in addition to the crime against morality, social duty and religion, he has committed sacrilege, in that he has disgraced a Muslim and thereby cast scorn upon the Muslims in general, and so must be executed....Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them." -- Sultanhussein Tabandeh, A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

09/08/2010

We're forced to accept it without question, on pain of charges of "Islamophobia": Islam is just like Christianity and Judaism in its ability to fit without difficulty into the Western societal framework of non-establishment of religion.

However, Sharia is an all-encompassing program for every aspect of life, including the governance of the state. In "Separation Of Church And State" at Islaam.com, Dr. Ja`far Sheikh Idris argues that the separation of religion and state is un-Islamic. And so once again, in the same words as I did before, I offer the invitation to Muslim "moderates": show where Dr. Ja`far Sheikh Idris is wrong on Islamic grounds. The world wants to see you refute the version of Islam of the "extremists." The "extremists," after all, aren't getting their ideas from me, but from the likes of Dr. Ja`far Sheikh Idris. So instead of spending all your time trying to prove me wrong, why not spend some time trying to prove them wrong -- if, that is, you really oppose what they're doing? Go ahead. We're watching, and waiting.

From "Separation Of Church And State" by Dr. Ja`far Sheikh Idris at Islaam.com (thanks to Axel):

[...] So how are Muslims to approach the modern trend of separation of religion and state? The basic belief in Islam is that the Qur'an is one hundred percent the word of Allah, and the Sunna was also as a result of the guidance of Allah to the Prophet sallallahu allayhe wasalam. Islam cannot be separated from the state because it guides us through every detail of running the state and our lives. Muslims have no choice but to reject secularism for it excludes the law of Allah.

Supporters of the secular state argue that the values of one religion cannot be imposed on members of different religions that are present in our countries. However, whether the non-Muslims in a state are few or many, secularism is not the answer. The non-Muslims in Muslim states will either be secularists themselves, in favour of abandoning the laws of Islam in the state, or will be devoted followers of their own religion, who wish that the state follow the rules of that religion. So in either case, a compromise cannot be made in accordance with the Islamic point of view. What needs to be pointed out is that under the law of Islam, other religions are not prohibited. At the same time, people are provided with doctrines for legislation and running of state that will protect people of all faiths living in the state.

Secularists in the West will agree with this, then they will point out that under Islamic law, people are not all equal. No non-Muslim, for example, could become the president. Well, in response to that fact, in turn, secularism is no different. No Muslim could become president in a secular regime, for in order to pledge loyalty to the constitution, a Muslim would have to abandon part of his belief and embrace the belief of secularism -- which is practically another religion. For Muslims, the word 'religion' does not only refer to a collection of beliefs and rituals, it refers to a way of life which includes all values, behaviours, and details of living.

Secularism cannot be a solution for countries with a Muslim majority or even a sizeable minority, for it requires people to replace their God-given beliefs with an entirely different set of man-made beliefs. Separation of religion and state is not an option for Muslims because is [sic] requires us to abandon Allah's decree for that of a man.

04/23/2010

Comedy Central Crushing Censorship: DO NOT SAY THE WORD MUHAMMADSharia (Islamic) Law In the USA!

Sharia law enforcement -- self policing. Do not say the word Muhammad. Comedy Central, which is so not funny these days, has banned the word Muahmmad. Is everyone in a coma?

And O'Reilly submitted to Islamic law here. This story is bigger than the Icelandic volcano -- a pillar of this great country has cracked clear through. Which is why the SIOA"free speech" bus victory is such a huge story.

Remember when the Nazis marched in Skokie back in the 70s? And what a big story that was? People were outraged, but free speech was (and is) the holy grail (and rightly so), no matter how despicable the idea.

This is the slipperyist of slopes - right off a cliff and into the stone age.

After last week's episode of the Comedy Central series sparked a threat (and yes, it was certainly a threat) from a radical Islamic website, the network has cracked-down-for-their-own-good on creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone during last night's continuation of the show's storyline.

For those who missed the drama, the show's 200th episode mocked the one "celebrity" that the show has been largely unable to depict, the Prophet Muhammad, who was hidden from view in a bear costume. A website then warned Parker and Stone they could end up like Theo Van Gogh (the Dutch filmmaker who was murdered by Muslim extremists after depicting Muhammad on his show) and even posted the address of the show's production office.

Last night's episode continued the controversial Muhammad storyline, but with a key difference: every instance of the words "Prophet Muhammad" were bleeped out, making the episode practically incomprehensible, especially to anybody who missed the previous week.

A Comedy Central spokesperson confirmed it was the network's decision to censor the words.

The content is also not available on the South Park Studios website.

The character of Muhammad was once again hidden from view, covered by a large block labeled "censored."

Ironically, the show apparently has an image of the Prophet Muhammad that's shown briefly in the show's opening credits that has gone largely unnoticed.

SouthParkStudios.comA message posted on SouthParkStudios.com, the Web site of Trey Parker and Matt Stone’s production company.

8:56 a.m. | Updated An episode of “South Park” that continued a story line involving the Prophet Muhammad was shown Wednesday night on Comedy Central with audio bleeps and image blocks reading “CENSORED” after a Muslim group warned the show’s creators that they could face violence for depicting that holy Islamic prophet. Revolution Muslim, a group based in New York, wrote on its Web site that the “South Park” creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker “will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh” for an episode shown last week in which a character said to be the Prophet Muhammad was seen wearing a bear costume. Mr. Van Gogh was slain in Amsterdam in 2004 after making a film that discussed the abuse of Muslim women in some Islamic societies.

The new episode of “South Park” on Wednesday night tried to revisit this character, but with the name and depiction of the character blocked out. It was unclear how much of the bleeping was Mr. Stone and Mr. Parker’s decision. In a message posted on their Web site, SouthParkStudios.com, they wrote that they could not immediately stream the new episode on the site because:

After we delivered the show, and prior to broadcast, Comedy Central placed numerous additional audio bleeps throughout the episode. We do not have network approval to stream our original version of the show.

On Thursday morning, a spokesman for Comedy Central confirmed that the network had added more bleeps to the episode than were in the cut delivered by South Park Studios, and that it was not giving permission for the episode to run on the studio’s Web site.

03/25/2010

The Silence of the Lambs

In recent years it has become fashionable to condemn Pope Pius XII (and, by implication, the Catholic Church) for his silence regarding Nazi persecution of the Jews. In fact, Pius confronted and condemned the Nazis on numerous occasions, and the Vatican saved more Jewish lives than any other organization apart from the Allied armies. The charge of remaining silent in the face of great evil could, however, much more plausibly be leveled against today’s Catholics—and not only Catholics, but Christians in general—for their failure to speak out against the evils perpetrated in the name of Islam. The reason that we don’t hear such criticism is that just about everyone has elected to remain silent on this topic, including those who usually delight in going after Christians. In fact, the critics of Pope Pius XII became upset with Pope Benedict XVI for not remaining silent about Islamic violence on the occasion of his speech at Regensburg. John Cornwell, the author of Hitler’s Pope, and a rabid critic of Pius, condemned Benedict’s speech as “incendiary” and “abrasive.” Apparently, when confronted with the greatest evil of your own time, silence is golden.

So, there is plenty of silence to go around, but Christian silence is particularly disturbing because Christians are supposed to answer to a higher authority than prevailing opinion. In addition, Christians can’t very well claim ignorance since much of recent Muslim animosity has been directed toward Christians. Here are some recent headlines:

The response to all this on the part of Christian leaders has been muted. In fact, many Christians seem more worried about the dangers of Islamophobia than about the persecution of fellow Christians. For instance, Protestant and Catholic clergy throughout Europe have strongly condemned the recent Swiss vote to ban construction of new minarets. Likewise, in France the clergy seem more focused on a possible ban of the burqa than on the precarious situation of Christians in Muslim countries. In Holland a majority of Dutch clergy have condemned Geert Wilders as un-Christian for speaking out against Islamic violence. And at a “Christian-Muslim Summit” held at the Washington National Cathedral in early March, the harshest words in the final statement were reserved for the media, which was challenged to live up to its responsibility of “stemming the tide of Islamophobia.”

A few weeks earlier, Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, the President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue issued his own warning against Islamophobia. “We must not fear Islam,” he said at a theology congress in Granada, and added, “dialogue alone allows us to overcome fear, because it allows one to experience the discovery of the other…” So, it seems the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Once you get to know the other fellow and his religion—“experience the discovery of the other” and all that—your fears will melt away. In a January interview with L’ Osservatore Romano, Cardinal Tauran decried the “feeling of fear” associated with the Swiss minaret vote. “I wonder,” he said, “if these persons [who are afraid] know Muslims, if they have ever opened the Qur’an.”

Just be careful not to open it with dirty hands if you happen to be living in Pakistan. The point is, a lot of Christians living in the Muslim world are discovering the otherness of the other—often at the business end of a machete. What many professional dialoguers fail to appreciate is the almost total otherness of the Islamic belief system. It’s one thing to encounter the “other” in the carpeted rooms of the inter-faith meetings in Washington and Rome; it’s another thing to encounter him in a society where he has complete power to enforce his will and his religion on you.

Christian self-indictment isn’t the worst of it. While some Christians agonize over Islamophobia, others seem to be OK with Judeophobia. Thus, a number of mainline churches are devoting their energies not to seeking justice for fellow Christians, but to echoing Muslim complaints against Israel. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America recently disseminated to its members a statement by 16 Palestinian Christians declaring that “the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is a sin against God and humanity…” And a report issued by Arab Catholic bishops in January blames the sufferings of Christians in the Arab world not on their Muslim persecutors but on the Israeli presence in the West Bank. So the next time a Christian Copt in Egypt steps out of his church into a hail of gunfire, blame the Jews.

Were Christians silent during the Nazi era? Some were, some even collaborated. On the other hand, some resisted, some risked their lives to save Jews. But the pertinent question for us is how would we react if faced with a similar evil. Right now we have a situation that is eerily reminiscent of the rise of Nazism: in this case the rise of a fanatical ideology that seeks world domination while calling, as the Nazis did, for the extermination of the Jews. Islamists even read the same books. Hitler’s Mein Kampf, is a bestseller in the Middle-East as well as in the Muslim sections of European cities. The anti-Semitic tract The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, also sells briskly. Hitler is a hero in some Muslim countries. Rabid anti-Semitism is an established fact of life on European and American campuses, and Jews are once again fleeing Europe. This is not a matter of history repeating itself in some subtle way that future historians will be able to sort out 50 years hence. This is history grabbing you by the collar, pulling you up close, and snarling, “Remember me?”

After World War II many Germans claimed that they didn’t know the extent of Nazi atrocities. And since the Nazis did keep some of their activities hidden, there may well have been many Germans who knew nothing about the killing camps. Nowadays, it’s a little more difficult to claim ignorance, what with the streaming headlines at the bottom of your TV screen itemizing the daily toll taken by Islamic suicide bombers. After 15,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, the picture seems fairly clear. Why don’t Christians get it? The answer is that a considerable number of Christians seem to have confused their Christian faith with the more popular religion of tolerance—a religion which is mainly concerned with displays of multicultural respect.

So, in regard to Islam, many Christians are more eager to demonstrate their tolerance than to understand the facts. As Faith McDonnell of the Institute of Religion and Democracy puts it:

Many churches are obsessed with making themselves likeable to Islamists…such churches opt for sessions of feel-good dialogue with the local mosque, gushing about how much Christianity and Islam have in common, and never challenging Muslims to serious debate on those so-called commonalities…

Today’s culturally sensitive Christians haven’t grasped the point that if there really were a lot of common ground between Islam and Christianity it would not be wise to advertise it. It’s a bit like bragging that you have a lot in common with the neighborhood bully who beats his wife. In short, searching for common ground with a tyrannical religious ideology is a formula for discrediting your own faith.

The religion of tolerance affords many opportunities for self-congratulation, but not for clear thinking. All moral/religious codes are not created equal. And to speak and act as though they are is to engage in a form of lying. Christians who keep quiet about the crimes of Islam or make excuses for them should stop congratulating themselves on their open mindedness, and should ask, instead, how they differ from all those Europeans who looked the other way when crimes were being committed in the Nazi era.

The record of Pope Pius XII is still being debated, but most of the evidence shows that he spoke out strongly against the Nazis and in defense of Jews. His efforts were not limited to formal protests, but also included initiatives to protect and shelter Jews throughout Europe. Historian David Dalin notes that in Rome alone, in response to the Pope’s request, “155 convents and monasteries sheltered some five thousand Jews… No fewer than three thousand Jews found refuge at Castel Gandolfo, the Pope’s summer residence…Pope Pius himself granted sanctuary within the walls of the Vatican in Rome to hundreds of homeless Jews.”

When the pope and other Catholic bishops did not speak out, it was often at the request of Jewish leaders who feared Nazi retaliation—a justified fear, seeing that the very strong protests by the Dutch bishops in July 1942 against the deportation of the Jews provoked the most savage of Nazi reprisals against the Jews.

But that is not the reason that so many Christians today remain silent about Islamic crimes. While it’s undoubtedly true that some church officials temper their words for fear of retaliation against their Christian brethren in the Muslim world, the majority of Western Christians are barely aware that they have brethren in places like Egypt, Pakistan, and Malaysia. Their silence is the silence of those who are blind to the danger—blinded by their faith in multicultural myths about moral equivalence, and blinded in part by the glow of their own self-regard. Tolerance is fine up to a point, and it does wonders for one’s self-esteem. But as Thomas Mann said, “Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.” We’ve reached the point where Christians need to subordinate their search for self-esteem to a search for facts.

William Kilpatrick’s articles on Islam have appeared in Catholic World Report, The National Catholic Register, Jihad Watch, World, and Investor’s Business Daily.

03/16/2010

Apart from men, they have no final cause, no purpose. In the precise, mathematical sense of the term, Islamic women are functions of male lust.

From the moment an Islamic girl is born, her social status is relative to male lust. Her upbringing inculcates in her the idea that she is not able to move freely in this world as an independent agent for her own destiny. At an early age, she will cover her head as a symbol of her abiding in the world as a temptation for male lust, a potential agent of impurity. The covering is a symbol that her behavior is to be modified to accommodate the propensity of men to covet women. Though it is the man who is unable to regulate his passions, she must be controlled. Though he is at fault for failing to exercise the virtues of custody of eyes and heart, she is impure, dishonored.

At nine, Sharia Law declares that she is old enough to marry. Though she may still sleep with her dolls, her father may sell her to be the plaything of a wealthy man. In very “moderate” Muslim countries, fathers may wait till their daughters reach puberty or even sixteen to dispose of their lives. MEMRI TV provides ample examples of Saudi Clerics scoffing at the idea of allowing girls to wait till they are eighteen to start their role in life of servicing male lust.

Once married, a woman is required to remain in the home unless accompanied by a male of her household. Without this protection, she could be raped in the streets while shopping or even be seduced. Because men cannot be expected to be satisfied with only one woman to accommodate their perpetual need for sex, Muslim women can expect to share their husbands with up to three other permanent wives and as many “temporary wives,” as he needs.

When they die, women go to heaven with their husbands to continue to serve them. For her husband, heaven is not union with God and reunion with loved ones, but the eternal satisfaction of every sexual desire. Even in cases in which Islamic women are happily married, they know their husbands live with the promise of eternal infidelity to them, thanks to the famous promise of 72 virgins.

The idea that another man might be interested in their wives is something of a preoccupation. (Men who suspect their blushing brides were not thrilled about marrying Grandpa’s best friend or a total stranger in the first place, may be particularly prone to this emotion.) At any rate, this explains the use of voluminous tents, drapes, and variations on the theme of shroud, to protect the lust-assuaging commodity that is ones wife.

Hijab, in all its forms, is the concrete symbol of this state of contingency. While many argue that hijab frees them by preventing men from thinking of them as sexual beings, it is none-the-less worn by the woman as the ever-present admonition to be other than what she is because her reality tempts men. Hijab places upon her shoulders the responsibility for supplying the deficiencies of the religion of Peace which lacks the means to establish and inspire internal self-discipline that leads to the “tranquility of order.”

Hijab is the daily usurpation of Islamic women’s right to self-determination as independent children of God, not derivatives of male lust. Each woman is endowed, as is each man, with intellect, free will, talent, and aspirations entirely unique in the world. It is imperative to denounce this spreading slavery, this living death of those whose lives are defined by what is not ennobled in others.

02/16/2010

LAST MAN STANDING -In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe ?'

Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, Chairman, Party for Freedom, the Netherlands , at the Four Seasons, New York , introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem .

Dear friends,

Thank you very much for inviting me.

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.

First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe . Then, I will say a few things about Islam. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem .

The Europe you know is changing.

You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.

All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe . These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe , street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe . With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam , Marseille and Malmo in Sweden . In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.

In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.

Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear 'whore, whore'. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.

In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin . The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.

In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels , because he was drinking during the Ramadan.

Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya , Israel . I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.

A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe . San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France .. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays.

The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey .

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. I call the perpetrators 'settlers'. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.

Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel . First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines , Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan , Lebanon , and Aceh in Indonesia . Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel . It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel , Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel , they can get everything. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. In my country, the Netherlands , 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a danger greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome , Athens and Jerusalem .

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe , American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe 's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know.